Revalations on PEC voting

[dvbuk55]

That's the difference between me and you my friend I am real. If I thought we could have led our members into further battle with the deal thats on offer believe me I'd have been the first one over the top. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree - you clearly think we could have carried onto some kind of glorious victory, I do not. One thing I dont want is a glorious defeat - then where would we be. I just don't believe the members would look at the deal and be prepared to carry on. So for me its not a question of wot I think, I'll always fight on if I believe the members will, on this occassion Iam convinced we would not have been able to explain why they were going out again. Please dont assume that because I say do the deal consolidate and live to fight another day than somehow Im in a bumker, that just aint my style never has been never will be.

Not too sure what a bumker is - but it sounds painful. The members were willing to go on, the leadership folded, the PEC held out a little longer but even 5 of those weren't sold the pup. Just because the leadership has recommended the deal doesn't mean the membership will go along. Dave Wards podcast was an advert for Royal Mail policy. Voting yes is an acceptance of what has been done, we all know it is wrong but some can't accept they are going to be a party to a bad deal and try to justify it.

[johnnyp]

Good debate lads and i do agree with both of you on various points that youve both raised.I must admit i tend to agree more with kill joy ,but keep up the good work dvbuk55 Your posts make good reading and put the NO vote case across excellently

[kill Joy]

That's the difference between me and you my friend I am real. If I thought we could have led our members into further battle with the deal thats on offer believe me I'd have been the first one over the top. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree - you clearly think we could have carried onto some kind of glorious victory, I do not. One thing I dont want is a glorious defeat - then where would we be. I just don't believe the members would look at the deal and be prepared to carry on. So for me its not a question of wot I think, I'll always fight on if I believe the members will, on this occassion Iam convinced we would not have been able to explain why they were going out again. Please dont assume that because I say do the deal consolidate and live to fight another day than somehow Im in a bumker, that just aint my style never has been never will be.

Not too sure what a bumker is - but it sounds painful. The members were willing to go on, the leadership folded, the PEC held out a little longer but even 5 of those weren't sold the pup. Just because the leadership has recommended the deal doesn't mean the membership will go along. Dave Wards podcast was an advert for Royal Mail policy. Voting yes is an acceptance of what has been done, we all know it is wrong but some can't accept they are going to be a party to a bad deal and try to justify it.

Excuse my dyslexia. I meant trench!

You say the members were willing to go on but they hadn't had the revised deal put in front of them. Now they have they will decide. Frankly I'll be happy being wrong on the outcome of this vote. Only time will tell. Not seen the podcast yet, hope its not as bad as you suggest. Whilst i dont accept the deal is perfect I dont believe it is bad either. Another thing we wont agree on.

[marky]

kiljoy take off the royal mail tinted sun glasses. its a s**t deal and you know it.

[dvbuk55]

kiljoy take off the royal mail tinted sun glasses. its a s**t deal and you know it.

I agree with you we have been sold down the river with this deal - I sincerely hope kiljoy is wrong and that the membership take on board how, in the long term, this is the end of CWU involvement in the workplace. RM now know they can take any outlandish deal to this present leadership and they will agree to it merely to be at the table. The fact that they are now a toothless tiger doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest. They are saying to RM "deal with us and we will recommend it and put the onus on local reps to negotiate individual agreements which you will be able to pick off at will".

And kiljoy - trench is much much better than bumker!

[kill Joy]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

The deal Ray signed on behalf of Dave was last years pay deal(Shaping our future) I am sure the title was meant as a joke as it contained words like firm commitment to work with the Union, significant pension investment(RM and Government to fund the pension deficit in full) an agreement with RM that wasn't worth the paper it was wrote on.

I have found out who the main players were on the pensions group who met with RM to negotiate the deal, they were Ray Ellis, Norman Candy, Jane Loftus, Mark Baulch, Lionel Sampson. Terry Pullinger sat on group at CWU HQ who were given feedback from the negotiators he did not attend one meeting with RM and in fact I understand questioned why we were negotiating with them.

Either your sources gave you the info incorrectly or were playing on words again by saying Pullinger was heading up the pension talks when in fact he sat on a group outside of the talks and had very little input. I guess some see Pullinger as a threat to Dave Ward and his Empire of cronies and will use whatever they can to discredit him

I think it is your source that is wrong, how can you be so sure you are not unwittingly havin the wool pulled over your eyes? My info is clear that the group that was set up at HQ was fronted by 2 officers Ellis and Pullinger. Do you seriously think that Terry would have been excluded from any negotiations, if you know him as well as I think you do you know only too well he would have been at them talks - PEC members were in attendance so would Terry if he wanted to. Simple fact is he didnt want to get his hands dirty. Still haven't had any explanation for why Terry said to the PEC they should vote for the final deal even though he was removing his name. Seems to me it's easier to exclude oneself and snipe from the sidelines. Nothing to do with discrediting anyone. As I've always said all I am intersted in is the truth and nothing but the truth. I challenge anyone to provide any evidence otherwise - sorry, it just aint there.

I am afraid my friend you are the one having the wool pulled over your eyes I can send you a copy of an email from Ray Ellis to Terry Pullinger confirming that he is not part of the negotiating team and would not be in attendance at any of the talks. Your source will only want you to feed this site with their spin from CWU HQ or maybe it’s your own spin. You know the real truth is the best negotiators were left on the side lines during the talks because they did not agree with Dave’s views. When Billy was the outdoor Secretary he was hardly know for great agreements and yet he was the only elected official involved in the talks at the end (there was of course the involvement of non elected individuals). I hear you mention Terry on this site but no real view on either Bob Gibson or Martin Collins?? I do know Terry I also know Dave, Bob, Martin, Ray and Billy. I have defend Ray on this site because I don’t like the internal politics at HQ and the self preservation society and you are close enough to know what’s going on and one day the truth will out. I don't sell anyone else’s view but my own I am no patsy for anybody and nor should you be.

You stated "I can send you a copy of an email from Ray Ellis to Terry Pullinger confirming that he is not part of the negotiating team", Ive not had it yet, is there any chance?